Supreme Court of India· 08 September 2026

Does excluding landowners under the National Highways Act from the solatium and interest available under general land acquisition law amount to a violation of Article 14?

Manav Bhanot v. National Highway Authority of India

2026 INSC 973 · SLP (C) No.27541 of 2024
Coram: Justice J. B. Pardiwala · Justice K. Vinod Chandran

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.3J National Highways Act, 1956 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Excluding landowners under the National Highways Act from the solatium and interest available under general land acquisition law amounts to a violation of Article 14.

Yes. Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, which made the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 inapplicable to highway acquisitions and thereby denied solatium and interest to those landowners, was held to violate Article 14 of the Constitution and struck down as unconstitutional; the benefit of solatium and interest applies across the years, both before and after the 2013 Act. (¶6, 17)

Headnote

National Highways Act, 1956 — s.3J, s.105 — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Solatium and interest — Constitution of India, Art.14 — National Highways Act, 1956 — s.3J — Article 14 — Unconstitutional exclusion — Held: Excluding landowners under the National Highways Act from the solatium and interest available under general land acquisition law amounts to a violation of Article 14; Section 3J of the NH Act was struck down as unconstitutional on this ground. (¶6, 17) National Highways Act, 1956 — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Applicable rate of solatium — Held further: Solatium and interest for a National Highways Act acquisition are computed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where compensation is determined before 1 January 2015, the date from which the 2013 Act was extended to such acquisitions; a later determination attracts the more beneficial 2013 Act. (¶23, 24) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s.24(1)(a) — Award pre-dating the Act — Held further: Compensation for a land acquisition with no award as of 1 January 2014 must be determined under the Act of 2013, even where the proceedings commenced earlier. Appeal allowed to the extent of directing solatium and interest under the Act of 1894. (¶21, 22, 27)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 6In considering the issue, we have to first notice the amendments made to the NH Act in the year 1997, by Act 16 of 1997, which incorporated a new Section 3 including Section 3A to 3J. Section 3J made inapplicable the Act of 1894 to the acquisitions under the NH Act, which was under challenge before this Court in Tarsem Singh-I, in which, Section 3J was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and thus declared to be unconstitutional.

Paragraph 17The conspectus of the decisions cited above juxtaposed with the provisions of the three enactments dealt with, is that insofar as the Act of 2013, which came into effect on 01.01.2014, there was a time of one year provided by Section 105 insofar as its application to the enactments specified in the IVth Schedule; admittedly NH Act is one of such enactments included in that schedule. Section 3J of the NH Act, making inapplicable the provisions of the Act of 1894, which was brought in the year 1997, was declared unconstitutional by Tarsem Singh-I. As is evident from the dictum a blanket disentitlement to the benefits of Schedules I to III of the Act of 2013 would run afoul the authoritative pronouncement regarding constitutionality. Hence, but for Section 105 of the Act of 2013, it would have become applicable even to the NH Act from the date of its effective operation i.e.01.01.2014. Section 105 extended the period in which it becomes applicable for a period of one year, to those enactments included under Schedule IV, after which, by Ordinances and later by a notification, the Act of 2013 was made applicable to the acquisitions under the NH Act also.

Acts & Sections

s.3J National Highways Act, 1956s.105 National Highways Act, 1956s.24(1)(a) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Art.14 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Manav Bhanot v. National Highway Authority of India — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Is solatium and interest for a National Highways Act acquisition computed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where compensation is determined before 1 January 2015?Must compensation for a land acquisition with no award as of 1 January 2014 be determined under the Act of 2013, where proceedings commenced earlier?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections